Help? Missing pages to Heinlein's _The Day After Tomorrow_?
Brian Hirt
real stickler about the matter. Anyway, consider yourself warned.)
I was reading a battered old copy of Robert A. Heinlein's _The Day After
Tomorrow_. Damndest thing -- it looks like some pages *may* be torn out
at the end. Then again, they might all be there. (It could go either
way, based on the context of where the text leaves off).
So my BIG FAVOR for anyone who has this book: Please take a minute to
pull this off the shelf and let me know if the final sentence ends
"...he had asked for." (Hardly enough context there to constitute a
spoiler.)
Please E-mail your response to bh...@ix.netcom.com. I will post a
follow-up to this newsgroup.
Note: the ISFDB advises that this book was originally titled _Sixth
Column_ and credits Heinlein's nom de plume Anson MacDonald.
Thank you very much!
Brian Hirt
bh...@ix.netcom.com
M w stone
>So my BIG FAVOR for anyone who has this book: Please take a minute to
>pull this off the shelf and let me know if the final sentence ends
>"...he had asked for."
Yes it does
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Last words of King Edward II.
"I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - -A AARGHH!!!
Brian Hirt
Brian Hirt
ROU Don't Say You Weren't Warned
The book ends 'chess board he had asked for'. I have it in level2
storage.
<unsnip>
--
ROU Don't Say You Weren't Warned
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>
> >Heinlein's _The Day After Tomorrow_?
>
> >So my BIG FAVOR for anyone who has this book: Please take a minute to
> >pull this off the shelf and let me know if the final sentence ends
> >"...he had asked for."
>
> Yes it does
Heinlein seems to have a particular problem with endings. _The Cat Who
Walked Through Walls_ just kind of tails off...
But then, I find myself dissatisfied with the endings of most books, for a
variety of reasons. Sometimes they don't really go anywhere; other times the
resolution of the story just leaves more questions. Or I might get to the end
and think, "Oh, well, I guess you *could* end it like that..." Or other times
the ending just seems too predictable, without any surprises.
While I am not a fan of Hollywood "pat" endings, either, I do seem to prefer
endings that are both surprising and interesting, yet still provide closure
and a sense of restoring things to their "rightful" place. Maybe this is why
I tend to prefer shorts; they usually don't seem to suffer from the same
disappointing endings I often find in novels.
Bruce
Samael
Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote in message
<36E6E114...@ix.netcom.com>...
>M w stone wrote:
>>
>> >Heinlein's _The Day After Tomorrow_?
>>
>> >So my BIG FAVOR for anyone who has this book: Please take a minute to
>> >pull this off the shelf and let me know if the final sentence ends
>> >"...he had asked for."
>>
>> Yes it does
>
>Heinlein seems to have a particular problem with endings. _The Cat Who
>Walked Through Walls_ just kind of tails off...
>
I loved the ending of 'Cat'. It felt like the ending of an old serial. It
certianly had me looking forward to the next one.
Samael
Dorothy J Heydt
Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[Ending of The Day After Tomorrow/Sixth Column]
>Heinlein seems to have a particular problem with endings.
I'm not ready to generalize about Heinlein's endings [pause to
examine a few in my mind. Rolling Stones, OK, Star Beast, very
good, Farmer in the Sky, acceptable, Puppet Masters (old version)
acceptable, ...]; but the ending of Sixth Column is actually
a good one. It displays a quality that Spanish poets used to
call _el arte de saber callar,_ "the art of knowing [when] to
shut up."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Joy Haftel
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <36E6E114...@ix.netcom.com>,
>Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[Ending of The Day After Tomorrow/Sixth Column]
>
>>Heinlein seems to have a particular problem with endings.
>
>I'm not ready to generalize about Heinlein's endings [pause to
>examine a few in my mind. Rolling Stones, OK, Star Beast, very
>good, Farmer in the Sky, acceptable, Puppet Masters (old version)
>acceptable, ...]; but the ending of Sixth Column is actually
>a good one. It displays a quality that Spanish poets used to
>call _el arte de saber callar,_ "the art of knowing [when] to
>shut up."
I like Heinlein usually, but he really should have shut up before
*starting* to write "Sixth Column," and skipped the project altogether.
Nasty little book.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
> I like Heinlein usually, but he really should have shut up before
> *starting* to write "Sixth Column," and skipped the project altogether.
> Nasty little book.
A lot of people I know seem to think he should have shut up before _Stranger
In a Strange Land_. This issue has been gone over and over before, so I don't
want to start a thread about it here, but I still find it interesting how,
generally speaking, most people either prefer his earlier work or his later
work. They draw the line in different places, but there's almost always a
distinction. And at the same moment, you'll have one woman calling him a
sexist pig while another praises him for the way he elavates and reverse women.
I can't think of any writer who generates such bipolar responses, except for
maybe Harlan Ellison. But that tends to be personal; his friends love him and
his enemies hate him.
Personally I'd sell my soul to be as good a writer as either of them. :)
Bruce
Joy Haftel
>> I like Heinlein usually, but he really should have shut up before
>> *starting* to write "Sixth Column," and skipped the project altogether.
>> Nasty little book.
>A lot of people I know seem to think he should have shut up before _Stranger
>In a Strange Land_. This issue has been gone over and over before, so I don't
>want to start a thread about it here, but I still find it interesting how,
>generally speaking, most people either prefer his earlier work or his later
>work.
Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
reading it.
M w stone
>Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
>horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
>reading it.
Racist in what way? Iirc, one of it's *heroes* was an Asian-American
Alinet2
>
>Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
>horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
>reading it.
>
You need to take into consideration that it was written during WW2 when the
Japanese were our enemy. Although IIRC RAH referred to them as the panasians
rather than explicitly Japanese.
Nancy Lebovitz
M w stone <mws...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: jkh...@netcom.com (Joy Haftel)
>
>>Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
>>horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
>>reading it.
>
>
can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
no contact? Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
"the American mind".
Cronan
>>Racist in what way? Iirc, one of it's *heroes* was an Asian-American
>>
>How about the idea of "the Asian mind"--a stable enough trait that it
>can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
>no contact?
How is that racist?
> Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
>"the American mind".
How is this racist?
Cronan
carl Dershem
> >From: jkh...@netcom.com (Joy Haftel)
>
> >Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
> >horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
> >reading it.
>
> You need to take into consideration that it was written during WW2 when the
> Japanese were our enemy. Although IIRC RAH referred to them as the panasians
> rather than explicitly Japanese.
You also have to recall that the book wasn't his idea - it was John Campbell's.
Heinlein reputedly disliked the concept and the book, but had a mortgage payment
to make.
cd
Joy Haftel
M w stone <mws...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: jkh...@netcom.com (Joy Haftel)
>
>>Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
>>horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
>>reading it.
>
It's been a long time since I read it, so plaster IIRC all over this
response.
One of the heroes was *partially* Asian-American. The "heroes" ended up
developing a weapon which killed the "villains" (Pan-Asians = thinly
disguised WWII-era Japanese) based on a biological characteristic related
to their race. I believe it was something like a blood type, or a
chemical in their blood. It did not affect the "hero" character because
he did not have that biological characteristic due to his mixed race.
Nasty bit of work, that. The phrase "doing Hitler's work for him" springs
to mind.
It may very well be that Heinlein didn't want to write it, but did it for
the money, as another poster suggests. Even so, he *did* write it, and
it *does* turn my stomach.
Plenty of good authors have written racist things, Shakespeare among
them. It doesn't make them any worse *authors*, and in some cases one
can't expect an author to hold the sensibilities of another age, but for
goodness's sake, we don't have to *defend* them.
Dorothy J Heydt
>In article <F8Fxz...@kithrup.com>,
>
>I like Heinlein usually, but he really should have shut up before
>*starting* to write "Sixth Column," and skipped the project altogether.
>Nasty little book.
Not nearly as nasty as it might've been if Campbell'd written it
himself.
I quote from _Expanded Universe_: "Writing SIXTH COLUMN was a job
I sweated over. I had to reslant it to remove racist aspects of
the original story line. And I didn't really believe the
pseudoscientific rationale of Campbell's three spectra--so I
worked especially hard to make it sound realistic."
Dorothy J Heydt
>developing a weapon which killed the "villains" (Pan-Asians = thinly
>disguised WWII-era Japanese) based on a biological characteristic related
>to their race. I believe it was something like a blood type, or a
>chemical in their blood. It did not affect the "hero" character because
>he did not have that biological characteristic due to his mixed race.
No. You're misremembering. The guy you're thinking of is an
Asian-American, one of the few survivors--the PanAsians kill off
Asian-Americans on sight as "impure," and this guy saw his whole
family slaughtered. He joins the rebellion. Late in the book
one of the rebels goes nuts and adjusts his gadget to kill
European- instead of Asian-Americans and threatens to wipe out
the whole HQ staff, and the one Asian-American rushes him and
takes him out before he is killed.
You can sort of tell from the Heinlein version what the Campbell
version would've been like, and a good thing it never got
written.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Nancy Lebovitz
Cronan <h...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote
>>>Racist in what way? Iirc, one of it's *heroes* was an Asian-American
>>>
>>can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
>>no contact?
>
>How is that racist?
>
>> Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
>>"the American mind".
>
>How is this racist?
They're at least somewhat racist in assuming that someone's race gives
information about how they think, though I suppose you could make
a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
What do you mean by racist?
Cronan
>>>How about the idea of "the Asian mind"--a stable enough trait that it
>>>can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
>>>no contact?
>>
>>How is that racist?
>>
>>> Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
>>>"the American mind".
>>
>>How is this racist?
>
>They're at least somewhat racist in assuming that someone's race gives
>information about how they think,
Ah. So it's racist because it assumes a link between two traits known
to be unrelated? What if they weren't known to be unrelated at the time
of the writing?
though I suppose you could make
>a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
Making a prediction using an outdated model is racist?
>What do you mean by racist?
I don't mean anything. I'm trying to feel out your definition.
Cronan
Nancy Lebovitz
Cronan <h...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote
>>>>How about the idea of "the Asian mind"--a stable enough trait that it
>>>>can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
>>>>no contact?
>>>
>>>How is that racist?
>>>
>>>> Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
>>>>"the American mind".
>>>
>>>How is this racist?
>>
>>They're at least somewhat racist in assuming that someone's race gives
>>information about how they think,
>
>Ah. So it's racist because it assumes a link between two traits known
>to be unrelated? What if they weren't known to be unrelated at the time
>of the writing?
>
> though I suppose you could make
>>a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
>
>Making a prediction using an outdated model is racist?
If it's a racist model, yes.
>
>>What do you mean by racist?
>
>I don't mean anything. I'm trying to feel out your definition.
>
Actually, I'm being a little sloppy. I'm not sure that _Sixth Column_
is a racist novel--I've tried to figure out whether there was some
reasonable way to view it as racist, and the stuff about "the Asian
mind" was the best I could come up with.
I've actually almost given up using 'racist'--I'm too annoyed at the
people who've tried to recast it as only meaning racial bigotry directed
toward those of lower status. I've made a strategic retreat to 'bigotry'--
which I take to mean using superficial characteristics (especially
racial, ethnic, or religious) to make negative judgements about groups
of people.
M w stone
>I've actually almost given up using 'racist'--I'm too annoyed at the
>people who've tried to recast it as only meaning racial bigotry directed
>toward those of lower status. I've>made a strategic retreat to 'bigotry'--
>which I take to mean using superficial characteristics (especially
>racial, ethnic, or religious) to make negative judgements about groups
>of people.
Agreed.
Actually I think there is a tendency in this thread to get "racism", (however
it be defined) with *nationalism* which is a rather different thing.
I haven't actually *read* Sixth Column for some while, but iirc, Heinlein's
"litmus test" in passing judgment on his characters rested not on race or
colour, but on alleigance to the Constitution of the United States - up to and
including a willingness to die for it if necessary
A slant-eyed oriental (my words, not his) who exhibited this alleigance would,
if I understand Heinlein correctly, stand higher in his estimation than a WASP
who did not.
Indeed, the one American character who rejected the Constitution (I forget his
name, but think he was a Colonel) is portrayed in thoroughly unsympathetic
terms and shown as eventually going right off his trolley and attempting a
coup-d'etat against his own side. Iirc he *was* a WASP
James Nicoll
>version would've been like, and a good thing it never got
>written.
I know I have read Campbell's version. Think it was in a collection
of his stuff put out in the mid '70s.
--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Robert A. Woodward
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <F8Inq...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >
> >You can sort of tell from the Heinlein version what the Campbell
> >version would've been like, and a good thing it never got
> >written.
>
> I know I have read Campbell's version. Think it was in a collection
> of his stuff put out in the mid '70s.
The novella "All" in _The Space Beyond_ (Pyramid, June 1976).
Dorothy J Heydt
Alinet2 <ali...@aol.com> wrote:
>You need to take into consideration that it was written during WW2 when the
>Japanese were our enemy. Although IIRC RAH referred to them as the panasians
>rather than explicitly Japanese.
It was written to Campbell's (verbal) outline by Heinlein in 1940,
when the US was not yet at war. Many people, however, had been
observing Japanese expansion in the Pacific for some years. The
Japanese could be seen as a threat even though they were not yet
one's own official enemy.
And we don't know how far back Campbell's outline goes, either.
Dorothy J Heydt
carl Dershem <der...@home.com> wrote:
>You also have to recall that the book wasn't his idea - it was John Campbell's.
>Heinlein reputedly disliked the concept and the book, but had a mortgage
>payment to make.
No, he had paid off the mortgage in February, after selling
"Blowups Happen." He wrote _Sixth Column_ in order to buy a car.
Dorothy J Heydt
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> I know I have read Campbell's version. Think it was in a collection
>of his stuff put out in the mid '70s.
???? According to Heinlein Campbell's version was never written--
he didn't even see an outline, Campbell told him the plot verbally.
Maybe there was an outline or rough draft Heinlein didn't see?
Cronan
>> though I suppose you could make
>>>a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
>>
>>Making a prediction using an outdated model is racist?
>
>If it's a racist model, yes.
And you'd say that "the Asian Mind" thingie was racist?
>>
>>>What do you mean by racist?
>>
>>I don't mean anything. I'm trying to feel out your definition.
>>
>Actually, I'm being a little sloppy. I'm not sure that _Sixth Column_
>is a racist novel--I've tried to figure out whether there was some
>reasonable way to view it as racist, and the stuff about "the Asian
>mind" was the best I could come up with.
Curiously, I was trying to do something similar(figure out if it's
reasonable to see how others might view the novel as racist). I have
not read the book in a very long while - or so it seems since I passed
through my Heinlein Is God phase - but nothing about it struck me as
racist. The model to which you refer seemed more closely related to
nationality than race.
>I've actually almost given up using 'racist'--I'm too annoyed at the
>people who've tried to recast it as only meaning racial bigotry directed
>toward those of lower status.
Interesting, that. I, too, am often annoyed that many people resist
labelling people like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton 'racist' by
virtue of it being directed at a guilt-ridden majority.
I've made a strategic retreat to 'bigotry'--
>which I take to mean using superficial characteristics (especially
>racial, ethnic, or religious) to make negative judgements about groups
>of people.
The characteristics you mention, race, ethnicity and religion, have
far too profound an effect on what shapes a person's personality for
me to brush aside as superficialities. And I have my doubts that
even in the farthest, most harmonious of futures religion (and, to
throw to fuel on the fire, sex) will ever become "superficial
characteristics".
Cronan
Nancy Lebovitz
Cronan <h...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote
>>> though I suppose you could make
>>>>a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
>>>
>>>Making a prediction using an outdated model is racist?
>>
>>If it's a racist model, yes.
>
>And you'd say that "the Asian Mind" thingie was racist?
>
>>>>What do you mean by racist?
>>>
>>>I don't mean anything. I'm trying to feel out your definition.
>>>
>>Actually, I'm being a little sloppy. I'm not sure that _Sixth Column_
>>is a racist novel--I've tried to figure out whether there was some
>>reasonable way to view it as racist, and the stuff about "the Asian
>>mind" was the best I could come up with.
>
>Curiously, I was trying to do something similar(figure out if it's
>reasonable to see how others might view the novel as racist). I have
>not read the book in a very long while - or so it seems since I passed
>through my Heinlein Is God phase - but nothing about it struck me as
>racist. The model to which you refer seemed more closely related to
>nationality than race.
It's ambiguous--it's like the what British English used to mean by
'race', if I've deduced the meaning adequately from context. There's
an assumption that everyone of the same ethnicity will be raised in
the same culture, so race (modern sense) and nationality are much
more closely entangled than the modern use of the words would imply.
>>I've actually almost given up using 'racist'--I'm too annoyed at the
>>people who've tried to recast it as only meaning racial bigotry directed
>>toward those of lower status.
>
>Interesting, that. I, too, am often annoyed that many people resist
>labelling people like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton 'racist' by
>virtue of it being directed at a guilt-ridden majority.
I've gotten the impression that there's been a formal shift in the
meaning of racism to limit it to top-down prejudice, but I don't know
how or when it happened.
> I've made a strategic retreat to 'bigotry'--
>>which I take to mean using superficial characteristics (especially
>>racial, ethnic, or religious) to make negative judgements about groups
>>of people.
>
>The characteristics you mention, race, ethnicity and religion, have
>far too profound an effect on what shapes a person's personality for
>me to brush aside as superficialities. And I have my doubts that
>even in the farthest, most harmonious of futures religion (and, to
>throw to fuel on the fire, sex) will ever become "superficial
>characteristics".
>
'Superficial' might be too strong a word, but I would say that the
effects of race, religion, ethnicity, and sex/gender are too unpredictable
to make stereotypes very useful, especially if the categories include
a lot of people who haven't personally chosen to join them.
Possibly relevent: I've seen comments both from Jews visiting Israel
(this isn't recent) and African-Americans visiting Africa that it
was good to see their own people filling all the social niches.
Captain Button
>>From: jkh...@netcom.com (Joy Haftel)
>>
>>Well, actually, I like almost all Heinlein except _6th Column_. I found it
>>horrifying in its implications, nastily racist, and I felt icky after
>>reading it.
>>
> You need to take into consideration that it was written during WW2 when the
> Japanese were our enemy. Although IIRC RAH referred to them as the panasians
> rather than explicitly Japanese.
My impression is that in that world, the US lost or stayed out of
WW2 in the Pacific, and Japan was able to conquer China. The Japanese
and Chinese Imperial houses intermarried, and the two cultures
fused, with the Japanese on top, but getting swamped by Chinese
numbers and culture. Which is a traditional Chinese way of dealing with
invaders, I have read.
--
[ but...@io.com ]"DOGBERRY: Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily, they are slanders; sixth
and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust
things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves." Shakespeare - _Much Ado.._
Rich Horton
Heydt) wrote:
>You can sort of tell from the Heinlein version what the Campbell
>version would've been like, and a good thing it never got
>written.
Isn't there a Campbell story, "All", I think, which is his version?
Joy Haftel
>>
>>One of the heroes was *partially* Asian-American. The "heroes" ended up
>>developing a weapon which killed the "villains" (Pan-Asians = thinly
>>disguised WWII-era Japanese) based on a biological characteristic related
>>to their race. I believe it was something like a blood type, or a
>>chemical in their blood. It did not affect the "hero" character because
>>he did not have that biological characteristic due to his mixed race.
>No. You're misremembering. The guy you're thinking of is an
>Asian-American, one of the few survivors--the PanAsians kill off
>Asian-Americans on sight as "impure," and this guy saw his whole
>family slaughtered. He joins the rebellion. Late in the book
>one of the rebels goes nuts and adjusts his gadget to kill
>European- instead of Asian-Americans and threatens to wipe out
>the whole HQ staff, and the one Asian-American rushes him and
>takes him out before he is killed.
Ah, mea culpa. It was the weapon which was the racist. When you think of
how it would actually be used (if it existed), outside of Heinlein's
clever little set-up, the only use for it would be horrible indeed.
gromgorru
Joy Haftel wrote in message ...
>I like Heinlein usually, but he really should have shut up before
>*starting* to write "Sixth Column," and skipped the project altogether.
>Nasty little book.
Care to share with us the reasons
for feeling that way?
gromgorru
Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7cdl40$9...@netaxs.com>...
>In article <7cdju6$vns$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>>>>>can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
>>>>>no contact?
>>>>
>>>>How is that racist?
>>>>
>>>>> Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
>>>>>"the American mind".
>>>>
>>>>How is this racist?
>>>
>>>They're at least somewhat racist in assuming that someone's race gives
>>>information about how they think,
>>
>>Ah. So it's racist because it assumes a link between two traits known
>>to be unrelated? What if they weren't known to be unrelated at the time
>>of the writing?
>>
>>>a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
>>
>>Making a prediction using an outdated model is racist?
>
>If it's a racist model, yes.
Scuse me Nancy, but IMO, you should go back
to the book and reread the parts pertaining to
Frank Matsui.
Coyu
>>Interesting, that. I, too, am often annoyed that many people resist
>>labelling people like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton 'racist' by
>>virtue of it being directed at a guilt-ridden majority.
>
>I've gotten the impression that there's been a formal shift in the
>meaning of racism to limit it to top-down prejudice, but I don't know
>how or when it happened.
80s identity politics? "Racism is prejudice plus power."
P. Wezeman
> In article <19990312174415...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> Alinet2 <ali...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >You need to take into consideration that it was written during WW2 when the
> >Japanese were our enemy. Although IIRC RAH referred to them as the panasians
> >rather than explicitly Japanese.
>
> It was written to Campbell's (verbal) outline by Heinlein in 1940,
> when the US was not yet at war. Many people, however, had been
> observing Japanese expansion in the Pacific for some years. The
> Japanese could be seen as a threat even though they were not yet
> one's own official enemy.
>
> And we don't know how far back Campbell's outline goes, either.
Homer Leah (sp?), writing early in the century, forecast an
eventual clash between U.S. and Japanese interests in the Pacific.
Enough influential people believed him that it was commonly accepted
in the U.S. Navy by the 1930's that Japan was a likely foe, and that
strategy and doctrine for an extended amphibious campaign were developed.
I have wondered if this was partly responsible for the internment of
the Japanese in World War Two, as Mr. Leah took it for granted that the
large numbers of Japanese immigrants, many of them veterans of the
Imperial Japanese Army, to Hawaii and California were a fifth column
to act in concert with the Japanese navy in the conquest of these
places. Mr. Leah was very accurate in some things such as
forecasting the specific landing sites for the Japanese invasion of
Manilla, but incorrect in others such as underestimating the defensive
strength of built up areas, as shown at Leningrad and Stalingrad.
Homer Leah's writings were also popular among the Japanese,
some of whom took took them as recognition of Japanese destiny
as a major power.
I have also wondered if Miles Vorkosigan might be to some
extent modeled on Homer Leah. Mr. Leah was very interested in war,
but was physically unqualified for the American military services,
as he was of frail health. He eventually became military advisor
to Sun Yat Sen in China, so he had first hand knowledge of the
Japanese.
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
M w stone
> Homer Leah (sp?), writing early in the century, forecast an
>eventual clash between U.S. and Japanese interests in the Pacific
Homer Lea "The Valor of Ignorance"
Steve Parker
wrote:
>> You need to take into consideration that it was written during WW2 when the
>> Japanese were our enemy. Although IIRC RAH referred to them as the panasians
>> rather than explicitly Japanese.
>
>You also have to recall that the book wasn't his idea - it was John Campbell's.
>Heinlein reputedly disliked the concept and the book, but had a mortgage payment
>to make.
I was also under the impression that Heinlein did his best to mitigate
some of Campbell's um....ideas? by adding in that American-Asian guy
who turned out to be one of the heroes (and perhaps the only
sympathetic character). The guy had lost his wife and kids to the
invaders (the invaders hating Asian-Americans more than non-Asians).
The guy, having gone a bit nuts, was only trying to stay alive long
enough to avenge his dead family. There's a really touching scene when
he's brought into the conspiracy. I'm pretty sure that the character
is Heinlien's. I don't remember him in Campell's version
Steve
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Yes. I've been told to my face that it isn't possible for a black to be
racist (or a woman sexist) because it requires "power" (whatever that is.
Like Archie Bunker has more power than Bill Cosby. Ha.) If they want to
invent new terminology, I would appreciate it if they would generate new
words to go with them (rather than appropriating existing ones with
similar but not identical meanings). Another of my pet peeves is the
trendy word "homophobic".
carl Dershem
> Another of my pet peeves is the trendy word "homophobic".
Living near a gay area, and having several gay friends 9after several decades
in the entertainment industry), I've seen numerous instances of behavior that
can only be explained by fear/hatred of the existence of homosexuals. I
consider the term to be useful and accurate. WHy do you have a problem with
it?
Thomas Womack
>Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>
>> Another of my pet peeves is the trendy word "homophobic".
>I've seen numerous instances of behavior that can only
>be explained by fear/hatred of the existence of homosexuals.
>I consider the term to be useful and accurate. WHy do you
>have a problem with it?
I assumed it was because 'fear' and 'hatred' are different, and
'homophobic' merely means fear.
Tom
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
True, but in terms of human-human relationships, "fearing" a general class of
fellow man is not viewed positively by most people. You could fear neo-Nazis,
but fearing, say, black people would be seen as racist even if you don't "hate"
them.
Hmmm... I just realized that all good fundamentalist Christians are Deiphobic.
"Keaton once said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I
believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze." - Verbal
Kint, _The Usual Suspects_
Bruce
Rick
>
> carl Dershem wrote in message <36EC6345...@home.com>...
> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> >
> >> Another of my pet peeves is the trendy word "homophobic".
>
> >I've seen numerous instances of behavior that can only
> >be explained by fear/hatred of the existence of homosexuals.
> >I consider the term to be useful and accurate. WHy do you
> >have a problem with it?
>
> I assumed it was because 'fear' and 'hatred' are different, and
> 'homophobic' merely means fear.
>
Actually, I personally have a problem with the labelling of every
anti-homosexual person homophobic for two reasons: one, it diagnoses a
psychiatric condition for something (hating people because their
lifestyle is different) that may simply be a product of ignorance rather
than mental illness, and two, it also assumes that someone can't have a
self-consistent moral philosophy that allows them to think that
homosexuality is morally wrong without actually hating or fearing
homosexuals.
Coyu
>Actually, I personally have a problem with the labelling of every
>anti-homosexual person homophobic for two reasons: one, it diagnoses a
>psychiatric condition for something (hating people because their
>lifestyle is different) that may simply be a product of ignorance rather
>than mental illness,
I've never heard 'homophobia' used as a clinical psychiatric term...
but other well-defined psych terms have taken on colloquial meanings,
like 'paranoid' and 'schizophrenic'.
Also, these roots do vary their meanings from word to word. The genial
disgust a misanthrope feels for humanity is rather different from the
contempt a misogynist has for women.
The 'miso-' formation would work better, I think, but 'misohomist' is
an ugly word, as is 'misogayist'.
Thomas Womack
>carl Dershem wrote in message <36EC6345...@home.com>...
>>Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>>
>>> Another of my pet peeves is the trendy word "homophobic".
>
>>I've seen numerous instances of behavior that can only
>>be explained by fear/hatred of the existence of homosexuals.
>>I consider the term to be useful and accurate. WHy do you
>>have a problem with it?
>
>I assumed it was because 'fear' and 'hatred' are different, and
>'homophobic' merely means fear.
Sorry to follow up to my own message, but I suspect I took the wrong end
of a stick.
The problem with the word 'homophobic' is that it's a perfectly good
Greek-derived word meaning 'fear of the same thing', and that there is
no plausible Greek derivation by which it could mean 'fear of
homosexuals'. (what would a Greek word meaning that be? AFAIK Greek
terms for homosexuality were somewhat confusing ...)
I think the complaint was probably of an admirable concept being
labelled with a startlingly inelegant word; that would make more sense
if it's being described as a pet peeve about a word.
Tom
Coyu
>The problem with the word 'homophobic' is that it's a perfectly good
>Greek-derived word meaning 'fear of the same thing', and that there is
>no plausible Greek derivation by which it could mean 'fear of
>homosexuals'.
Just take it as a Greek-derived root with a new, English meaning.
I've never seen anyone object to 'electro-' because it originally
referred to amber. And what does 'methodical' have to do with roads?
Rick
An ugly word for an ugly attitude, so I would think that is fitting. I
don't have much patience for those who hate anyone for a physical
difference.
Dan Swartzendruber
> carl Dershem wrote in message <36EC6345...@home.com>...
> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> >
> >> Another of my pet peeves is the trendy word "homophobic".
>
> >I've seen numerous instances of behavior that can only
> >be explained by fear/hatred of the existence of homosexuals.
> >I consider the term to be useful and accurate. WHy do you
> >have a problem with it?
>
> I assumed it was because 'fear' and 'hatred' are different, and
> 'homophobic' merely means fear.
Yes.
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> Thomas Womack wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I personally have a problem with the labelling of every
> anti-homosexual person homophobic for two reasons: one, it diagnoses a
> psychiatric condition for something (hating people because their
> lifestyle is different) that may simply be a product of ignorance rather
> self-consistent moral philosophy that allows them to think that
> homosexuality is morally wrong without actually hating or fearing
> homosexuals.
This is precisely my position.
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
This is apples and oranges. We aren't talking about a couple of roots
whose original meaning is no longer relevant. Common English usage has
quite a few phobias (several of which are in common usage). Changing the
rules for one specific word is confusing.
Matt Austern
> This is apples and oranges. We aren't talking about a couple of roots
> whose original meaning is no longer relevant. Common English usage has
> quite a few phobias (several of which are in common usage). Changing the
> rules for one specific word is confusing.
And common English usage also has at least one word, xenophobia, that
does not usually mean "fear of". English speakers more commonly use
that word to mean prejudice against foreigners. The words
'homophobia' and 'xenophobia' are similar in that respect, and also
similar in that neither one refers to a diagnosable medical condition.
Are you genuinely confused about the meaning of 'homophobia' and
'xenophobia'? If so, I think you're in a small minority.
The relation of words and roots in English is complicated; there are
no rules to change. 'Red herring' has nothing to do with fish, and
'antisemitism' does not and never did refer to prejudice against all
Semitic peoples. Greek scholars might have a legitimate reason to
complain about English words whose meanings have become divorced from
their Greek components, but the rest of us may as well just live with
it.
carl Dershem
> >> Another of my pet peeves is the trendy word "homophobic".
> >
> >Living near a gay area, and having several gay friends 9after several decades
> in the entertainment industry), I've seen numerous instances of behavior that
> can only be explained by fear/hatred of the existence of homosexuals. I
> consider the term to be useful and accurate. WHy do you have a problem with it?
>
> Sigh. I knew this would happen. I do not in any way condone violence
> towards gay people. Nor do I think people who hate gays are justified. I
> am only quibbling with the semantic sloppiness inherent in labeling bigotry
> as a phobia. I have never heard a compelling argument that more than a
> tiny fraction of anti-gay bigots are actually, clinically afraid of
> homosexuals (or the concept). The simplest explanation is that most of
> them disapprove of homosexuality (which is certainly a choice one is
> entitled to, but not entitled to engaging in violent behavior toward gays).
Ah. I see your point, but it's flawed. If you look at the psychological concept
(shown true way too many times over the years) that hate and fear are mirror
twins, and if you talk to many of those under discussion, you'll see a very clear
trend.
The people that speak out the most strongly against homosexuality, and those who
feel compelled to take action against it, are by a very large margin afraid of
it. Get them into a long discussion and sooner or later they'l bring up their
fear that "them fruits are gonna pervert my kids" or other such nonsense. They
take action because their groundless fear of either the unknown or "forbidden
fruit" (as it were), or, in many cases, the "dirty" but enticing spetre of their
own desires and fears compel them to.
Most of the strongly anti-gay people I've run across fall into one or more of
those categories, and the vast majority hate it because they fear it. *All* of
the people whose cases I dealt with during my 15 years in the courts who were
convicted or gay-bashing or similar crimes used it as part of their defense.
People, especially ignorant people, fear the unknown. Ignorant and stupid people
take action on those fears. Thus the earlier message.
Is this any clearer?
cd
Nancy Lebovitz
carl Dershem <der...@home.com> wrote:
>Most of the strongly anti-gay people I've run across fall into one or more of
>those categories, and the vast majority hate it because they fear it. *All* of
>the people whose cases I dealt with during my 15 years in the courts who were
>convicted or gay-bashing or similar crimes used it as part of their defense.
>People, especially ignorant people, fear the unknown. Ignorant and stupid people
>take action on those fears. Thus the earlier message.
>
It presumably takes lack of empathy as well as ignorance and stupidity.
Joy Haftel
Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>Rick wrote:
>
>>Actually, I personally have a problem with the labelling of every
>>anti-homosexual person homophobic for two reasons: one, it diagnoses a
>>psychiatric condition for something (hating people because their
>>lifestyle is different) that may simply be a product of ignorance rather
>>than mental illness,
If you know someone with a honest-to-God, genuine, diagnosed phobia, and
I do, the phobia does not manifest itself by "hatred" of the feared
thing, but by restructuring one's life to ridiculous extremes to *avoid*
the feared thing.
>I've never heard 'homophobia' used as a clinical psychiatric term...
>but other well-defined psych terms have taken on colloquial meanings,
>like 'paranoid' and 'schizophrenic'.
What I don't like about it is the pop-psych diagnosis that all hated
things must be feared. Obviously fear is one reason a person could be,
ah, anti-homosexual, but there are other reasons as well.
>Also, these roots do vary their meanings from word to word. The genial
>disgust a misanthrope feels for humanity is rather different from the
>contempt a misogynist has for women.
>The 'miso-' formation would work better, I think, but 'misohomist' is
>an ugly word, as is 'misogayist'.
Well, going to the Greek roots of the words commonly translated as
homosexuality and tossing on the prefix mis/miso:
misomalakists = those who hate effeminacy and softness.
misarsenokoitists = those who hate men who go to bed with men.
Of course, both these words leave female homosexuality unaddressed. My
source doesn't have a word for female homosexuality, although it has a
sentence; the word misolesbist springs to mind but it looks funnier than
misogayist.
Joe Mason
[about terms to replace "homophobia"]
>> The 'miso-' formation would work better, I think, but 'misohomist' is
>> an ugly word, as is 'misogayist'.
>
>
>An ugly word for an ugly attitude, so I would think that is fitting. I
>don't have much patience for those who hate anyone for a physical
>difference.
Physical?
Joe
--
"Think hard and long about what your favorite book is. Once identified, read
it a paragraph at a time. Then after having read the paragraph, read each
sentence. See the way the sentences interrelate. Then, read the words..."
-- Mike Berlyn, on learning to write
Peter McCutchen
Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7cdl40$9...@netaxs.com>...
>Actually, I'm being a little sloppy. I'm not sure that _Sixth Column_
>is a racist novel--I've tried to figure out whether there was some
>reasonable way to view it as racist, and the stuff about "the Asian
>mind" was the best I could come up with.
Well, the book does assume that different ethnic groups have brains of
different "resonant frequencies" -- so that a mind-beam can be attuned to
blow the fuses of members of one racial group can leave another racial group
untouched. This would seem to assume the validity of the now-discredited
old-style "mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid" trichotomy, or of some very
similar schema.
And the view that racial groups are real biological categories that serve as
fault lines for important differences is often historically associated with
certain notions of superiority and inferiority. If it turns out that a
particular racial group is attuned to a certain frequency of mind-beam, it's
at least possible that this is correllated with other distinctions as
well -- differences in IQ, perhaps.
I realize that this is stretching a bit, but the book does seem "racialist,"
at least, in the sense that it assumes real, innate, biololgical differences
between racial groups sufficient to create weapons affecting only one
group.
>
>I've actually almost given up using 'racist'--I'm too annoyed at the
>people who've tried to recast it as only meaning racial bigotry directed
>toward those of lower status. I've made a strategic retreat to 'bigotry'--
>which I take to mean using superficial characteristics (especially
>racial, ethnic, or religious) to make negative judgements about groups
>of people.
Obsf: _The End of Racism_ by Dinesh D'Souza.
yan...@my-dejanews.com
If I remember correctly, in "Expanded Universe", Heinlein comments that he
tried hard to weaken the racist aspects of the book, and he did add the Asian-
American guy.
Given John Campbell's (reported) preference for non-alien humans-only
universes and the preference for superman-psi stories, one wonders a little
bit about his opinions on race. [Though reportedly, he showed very little
sexism]
Junsok Yang
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
yan...@my-dejanews.com
na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <19990312172020...@ng104.aol.com>,
> M w stone <mws...@aol.com> wrote:
> How about the idea of "the Asian mind"--a stable enough trait that it
> can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
> no contact? Also, the Pan-Asians seem to have no idea whatsoever about
> "the American mind".
I guess you never sat with a bunch of Asians (and I mean Asian-Asians, not
Asian-Americans) talk about America... :)
Nancy Lebovitz
Peter McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote in message <7cdl40$9...@netaxs.com>...
>
>>Actually, I'm being a little sloppy. I'm not sure that _Sixth Column_
>>is a racist novel--I've tried to figure out whether there was some
>>reasonable way to view it as racist, and the stuff about "the Asian
>>mind" was the best I could come up with.
>
>
>Well, the book does assume that different ethnic groups have brains of
>different "resonant frequencies" -- so that a mind-beam can be attuned to
>blow the fuses of members of one racial group can leave another racial group
>untouched. This would seem to assume the validity of the now-discredited
>old-style "mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid" trichotomy, or of some very
>similar schema.
>
unspecified physical characteristic.
Thomas E. Francis
carl Dershem wrote:
> Most of the strongly anti-gay people I've run across fall into one or more of
> those categories, and the vast majority hate it because they fear it. *All* of
> the people whose cases I dealt with during my 15 years in the courts who were
> convicted or gay-bashing or similar crimes used it as part of their defense.
> People, especially ignorant people, fear the unknown. Ignorant and stupid people
> take action on those fears. Thus the earlier message.
I realise I might be getting to private conversation here,
but I agree that "phobic" and it's attendant uses are
fairly valid - even when used in describing bigotry.
Psychology beside the point, you do hate what you
fear at any level.
Phobia, however, is very overused to describe anti-
social behavior. I've been on the receiving end of a
"homophobic" suit when I fired one individual for
incompetence. The suit was dismissed as I had
several individuals working in that department who
are (were?) gay and they stepped forward in my
defense.
The process was humiliating - every word, every
joke, every everything I had said and written over
the years was examined in minute detail to prove
that I was "homophobic".
It is my firm belief that the word "homophobic" was
used because "bigot" wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Why? Because I had gays, women, blacks, aisians,
hispanics and other people of diverse ethnic groups
working directly for me. My personal policy of
promoting within and casting a wide net for the best
and brightest would have also disproved "phobia".
So your both right - it just how the term is used that
causes the problems.
Later,
Tom (mailto:to...@neca.com)
Matt Hickman
>
> They're at least somewhat racist in assuming that someone's race gives
> information about how they think, though I suppose you could make
> a case that it's bigotry about culture rather than race.
Exactly. Frank, the Japanese American whose family was killed, did not have
the Pan-Asian mind set. These are cultural, not racial differences.
--
Matt Hickman
Captain Button
[ text coagulated ]
> Well, the book does assume that different ethnic groups have brains of
> different "resonant frequencies" -- so that a mind-beam can be attuned to
> blow the fuses of members of one racial group can leave another racial group
> untouched.
I don't recall any mention of brains specifically. I do recall
a description that talks about how the weapon works. It radiates
at the frequency of alternate spectra radiation absorbed by hemoglobin.
The hemoglobin breaks down from the energy input.
Another place refers to a general coagulation of the entire body in an
extreme case. I think this may implies that many proteins were affected.
> This would seem to assume the validity of the now-discredited
> old-style "mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid" trichotomy, or of some very
> similar schema.
Was it 'then-discredited'? Was the non-existance of race as biological
categories generally accepted in the scientific community in 1941?
> And the view that racial groups are real biological categories that serve as
> fault lines for important differences is often historically associated with
> certain notions of superiority and inferiority. If it turns out that a
> particular racial group is attuned to a certain frequency of mind-beam, it's
> at least possible that this is correllated with other distinctions as
> well -- differences in IQ, perhaps.
As above, minds are not specifically involved.
> I realize that this is stretching a bit, but the book does seem "racialist,"
> at least, in the sense that it assumes real, innate, biololgical differences
> between racial groups sufficient to create weapons affecting only one
> group.
It does assume that there are such differences, yes. When was this idea
proved to be nonsense to the satisfaction of the scientific community?
Was it before or after 1941?
--
[ but...@io.com ]"DOGBERRY: Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily, they are slanders; sixth
and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust
things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves." Shakespeare - _Much Ado.._
Matt Hickman
>
> Ah, mea culpa. It was the weapon which was the racist. When you think of
> how it would actually be used (if it existed), outside of Heinlein's
> clever little set-up, the only use for it would be horrible indeed.
There are genetic differences between human populations which differ
by geography. There probably will continue to be differences, albeit
diminishing, for some time to come.
This is not 'racist.' Biologists have traced the migration of populations
from Korea into Japan using genetic markers as well as roughly estimating
migration patterns out of Africa for H. Saps.
The major error in the weapons used in _Sixth Column_ is coverage. I find
it implausible that 100% of the Pan Asians could be killed while 0% of
non-asians are spared. This is nonsense, there is simply too much genetic
diversity in even a tiny nation for a simple ray weapon to discriminate
that well. And I think this should have been something that could
have been deduced from the science of 1940.
I do concede that the ray weapons used in _Sixth Column_ would be a racist's
dream. However, if they got into the hands of racist of a differing stripe,
it would turn into the original racist's nightmare. So Heinlein might also be
faulted for not exploring the implications of the weapons a bit more --
something like he did in "Solution Unsatisfactory."
--
Matt Hickman
from my standpoint [the PanAsians] are simply human beings who have been
duped into the old fallacy of the State as a super-entity. (Finny)
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_Sixth Column_ c 1941
Matt Hickman
> Peter McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Well, the book does assume that different ethnic groups have brains of
> >different "resonant frequencies" -- so that a mind-beam can be attuned to
> >blow the fuses of members of one racial group can leave another racial group
> >old-style "mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid" trichotomy, or of some very
> >similar schema.
> >
> unspecified physical characteristic.
Blood was targeted, not brains. Pete, where did you get this mind-beam
stuff? It wasn't in Heinlein's novel. Did you read the Campbell story?
--
Matt Hickman
Cops are cops no matter what the color of their skin. They
deal in fear and they understand fear.
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Well, the book does assume that different ethnic groups have brains of
>different "resonant frequencies" -- so that a mind-beam can be attuned to
>blow the fuses of members of one racial group can leave another racial group
>untouched.
No, you're mistaken. What the thing worked on was the body
proteins--take you, figure out which subset of mankind you belong
to, set the beam to your particular subset, turn it on you, and
you'll be hard-cooked like an egg while the guy next to you,
belonging to a different subset, will be untouched.
Sounds as if many who are arguing about the book here haven't
read it at all recently.
>This would seem to assume the validity of the now-discredited
>old-style "mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid" trichotomy, or of some very
>similar schema.
Yes, you're right there. It's just as contrary to fact to suppose
that mankind can be divided into three neat categories by protein
as by mindset.
Nobody knew that at the time, of course. Campbell didn't;
Heinlein didn't either or he would've found some way to work
around it, just as he worked around Campbell's "additional
spectra".
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Dorothy J Heydt
>
> Given John Campbell's (reported) preference for non-alien humans-only
>universes and the preference for superman-psi stories, one wonders a little
>bit about his opinions on race. [Though reportedly, he showed very little
>sexism]
Campbell, reportedly, thought that women were as intelligent as
men *but their minds went along different paths.* What paths
those would have been, I've never found out.
As for Campbell's racism, you have to keep in mind his particular
slant. It was a sort of sliding scale. He knew in his heart of
hearts that Scotsmen, like himself, were the best men in the
world. And that Northern Europeans generally were better than
anyone else on the planet. And a story whose cast of characters
didn't clash with these hidden assumptions would appeal to him
more than one that did. And a story in which Earth-humans were
better than anybody else in the Galaxy would have a similar
positive resonance, and other things being equal those are the
ones he'd buy.
It isn't that he'd think "all M are bad." He'd think, rather, "N
are better than anybody else" [he being an N] "and therefore of
course they're better than M, but that isn't M's fault."
M w stone
>I realize that this is stretching a bit, but the book does seem "racialist,"
>at least, in the sense that it assumes real, innate, biololgical differences
>between racial groups sufficient to create weapons affecting only one
>group.
Well, don't want to worry you but I saw something in a newspaper quite recently
about supposed work on "ethnic weapons" - apparently germ bombs which would
affect some racial groups but not others.
Personally, I have doubts about it's practicality, but there is nothing
inherently racist about the concept itself. No doubt it could be *used* to
racist ends, but so can the Theory of Evolution
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Last words of King Edward II.
"I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - -A AARGHH!!!
M w stone
>Date: 16/03/99 08:56 GMT
>> M w stone <mws...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> How about the idea of "the Asian mind"--a stable enough trait that it
>> can be used to predict behavior of a new nation after 50(?) years of
>> no contact?
Excuse me but I *didn't* write that - I may have responded to it
M w stone
>the Japanese American whose family was killed, did not have
>the Pan-Asian mind set.
Which is why the Pan-Asians wished to kill him and those like him.
>These are cultural, not racial differences.
>
>
Exactly - a point the Pan-Asians clearly understood
Mike Schilling
> Given John Campbell's (reported) preference for non-alien humans-only
> universes and the preference for superman-psi stories, one wonders a little
> bit about his opinions on race. [Though reportedly, he showed very little
> sexism]
>
I've never heard that Campbell preferred humans-only. Asimov wrote that
Campbell preferred universes in which humans were superior to aliens --
smarter, or more inventive, or just more energetic. Since Asimov felt
this to be akin to racism, he wrote humans-only stories to avoid either
confronting or accepting Campbell's views. (This seems a bit cowardly
to me, but since I never met either of the principles, I'm not sure I'm
entitled to that opinion.)
Jo Walton
> As for Campbell's racism, you have to keep in mind his particular
> slant. It was a sort of sliding scale. He knew in his heart of
> hearts that Scotsmen, like himself, were the best men in the
> world.
My copy of the SF Encyclopaedia says he was American, and everything I
have heard about him agrees with this. I think you are mistaken in
calling him a Scotsman.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
First NorAm Public Appearance: Imperiums to Order, Kitchener, March 20th
Freshly UPDATED web-page http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia;
RASFW FAQ, Reviews, Fanzine, Momentum Guidelines, Blood of Kings Poetry
Dan Goodman
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <F8p59...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com "Dorothy J Heydt" writes:
>
>> As for Campbell's racism, you have to keep in mind his particular
>> slant. It was a sort of sliding scale. He knew in his heart of
>> hearts that Scotsmen, like himself, were the best men in the
>> world.
>
>My copy of the SF Encyclopaedia says he was American, and everything I
>have heard about him agrees with this. I think you are mistaken in
>calling him a Scotsman.
He could _very_ easily have considered himself, and referred to himself
as, Scottish. He grew up in a time and place in which distinguishing
between, say, Irishmen (that is, Americans of Irish ancestry) and
immigrants from Ireland wouldn't have struck many people as being odd.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Joy Haftel
>> Ah, mea culpa. It was the weapon which was the racist. When you think of
>> how it would actually be used (if it existed), outside of Heinlein's
>> clever little set-up, the only use for it would be horrible indeed.
>There are genetic differences between human populations which differ
>by geography. There probably will continue to be differences, albeit
>diminishing, for some time to come.
>This is not 'racist.' Biologists have traced the migration of populations
>from Korea into Japan using genetic markers as well as roughly estimating
>migration patterns out of Africa for H. Saps.
Well, yes, any group that's isolated for a long time, or has a small
group of common ancestors, will have a lot of genetic characteristics in
common. However, remove the geographic isolation and the group will
acquire more diverse genetic characteristics. This is the exciting! new!
concept that people can be "multiracial," which the U.S. Census Bureau
seems to have discovered sometime last year. The increasing numbers of
multiracial individuals in the US will, I hope, soon make the concept of
race altogether moot.
>I do concede that the ray weapons used in _Sixth Column_ would be a racist's
>dream. However, if they got into the hands of racist of a differing stripe,
>it would turn into the original racist's nightmare. So Heinlein might also be
>faulted for not exploring the implications of the weapons a bit more --
Yes. It pretty much amounted to a handy-dandy-do-it-yourself genocide kit.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <F8p59...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com "Dorothy J Heydt" writes:
>
>My copy of the SF Encyclopaedia says he was American, and everything I
>have heard about him agrees with this. I think you are mistaken in
>calling him a Scotsman.
Jo.... I meant (and I should've been more specific) an American
of Scottish descent.
You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
James Nicoll
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <F8p59...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com "Dorothy J Heydt" writes:
>
>> slant. It was a sort of sliding scale. He knew in his heart of
>> hearts that Scotsmen, like himself, were the best men in the
>> world.
>
>have heard about him agrees with this. I think you are mistaken in
>calling him a Scotsman.
>
--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
yan...@my-dejanews.com
mws...@aol.com (M w stone) wrote:
> Excuse me but I *didn't* write that - I may have responded to it
Sorry, one of many problems with too-quick an editing job... :)
Junsok Yang
pricer...@my-dejanews.com
"Thomas Womack" <mert...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
(snip)
> The problem with the word 'homophobic' is that it's a perfectly good
> Greek-derived word meaning 'fear of the same thing', and that there is
> no plausible Greek derivation by which it could mean 'fear of
> homosexuals'. (what would a Greek word meaning that be? AFAIK Greek
> terms for homosexuality were somewhat confusing ...)
>
> I think the complaint was probably of an admirable concept being
> labelled with a startlingly inelegant word; that would make more sense
> if it's being described as a pet peeve about a word.
ISTM that homophobia is a perfectly good coinage to describe the underlying
_root_ of much hatred of homosexuals, i.e. the socially imposed terror at
getting _really_ close (in every, but expecially in a physical, sense) to a
person of the same gender... particularly for males, I suppose (of course
part of what's socially imposed is precisely the notion that it's _not_
socially imposed, that it's somehow "natural" to feel this uncomfortable
about getting close). In that sense, eliminating homophobia would end
gay-bashing, etc., but would also end a lot of the uneasiness all of us men,
however we "identify ourselves sexually", feel about getting close to other
men. That this is possible is evident to me, from the simple fact that my
physician can handle my genitals during an examination without any
embarassment whatever for either of us, nor any unbidden "sexual" feelings
(not to mention the proctological part!). But try thinking about the same
activity being engaged in by two men outside that rather rigidly
circumscribed social context... men have been murdered outright just for
holding hands, and that threat affects _all_ men, not just gays or bisexuals.
The problem is that the semantic field has shifted, so now I find myself
having to "define my terms" in order to use it in that
"etymologically-defensible" sense rather than with its more everyday meaning.
Not a really big deal, however. There's probably some technical term in
rhetoric for that kind of shift (just as there is, say, for a word coming to
stand for the whole of which it is a part, etc.), but I can't think of it...
George (we're getting rather far from Heinlein here, aren't we? But perhaps
not...)
Dan Swartzendruber
> In article <MPG.1158e6dd1...@news.kersur.net>,
> Dan Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> wrote:
> >I read an SF paperback a couple of years ago (don't remember the title or
> >the author, unfortunately), where the basic plot was that a white racist
> >group had perfected a super-virus that was primarily effective against
> >people of African descent. Unfortunately for them, it gets loose on a
> >small scale by accident and the plot gets blown...
>
> The obvious twist ending for that is that _everyone_ is of African
> descent.
Well yeah, I suppose :)
pricer...@my-dejanews.com
Matt Austern <aus...@sgi.com> wrote:
(snip)
> The relation of words and roots in English is complicated; there are
> no rules to change. 'Red herring' has nothing to do with fish, and
> 'antisemitism' does not and never did refer to prejudice against all
> Semitic peoples. Greek scholars might have a legitimate reason to
> complain about English words whose meanings have become divorced from
> their Greek components, but the rest of us may as well just live with
> it.
True...
But us philologists are allowed to gripe a bit occasionally, aren't we? ;-)
(An even better example might be "hydrophobia"... though I supposed many more
people would recognize the xeno- and homo- variations than the hydro- one)
Samael
James Nicoll wrote in message <92168757...@watserv4.uwaterloo.ca>...
>In article <36EF9AC4...@nortelnetworks.com>,
>David Kennedy <kenn...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>>Samael wrote:
>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> >You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
>>> >part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
>>>
>>
>>You have no idea how much that pisses [all non-Americans] off.
>>
>>It's St Patrick's day today - there will be more 'Irish' people
>>celebrating in Boston than in the whole of this island (or somesuch
>>scary statistic).
>>
>>[Note for the observant - I'm being made to work today.
>> Note for the even more observant - I can't seem to do much, hence
>> reading here during compiles...]
>>
>>> (Sorry, I live in the town with the Wallace Monument is, and well, ever
>>> since Braveheart....)
>>
>>*shudder* I can picture it, all ruddy necks and big, brightly
>>coloured coats.
>
> Hmmmph. Don't the New World Scots and Irish outnumber the
>stay-at-homes?
No, because there are no new world Scots and Irish.
There are merely people of Scots and Irish descent.
The culture is about as close as Disneyland is to New York.
Samael
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Samael wrote:
> > Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > >You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
> > >part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
> >
> > You have no idea how much that pisses Scottish people off.
>
> You have no idea how much that pisses [all non-Americans] off.
Because you utterly misunderstand what we're talking about when we say
it. We're discussing ethnicity, not nationality. We're talking about
ourselves and our ancestry, and the related questions of when and why
those ancestors came here. Which last usually, of course, boils down
to, "because it was so bad where they were."
> It's St Patrick's day today - there will be more 'Irish' people
> celebrating in Boston than in the whole of this island (or somesuch
> scary statistic).
There are more people of Irish descent in the US than in Ireland, and
more in New York City than in Dublin. St. Patrick's Day became a major
ethnic holiday for Irish-Americans, and then the Irish-Americans were
having so much fun that Americans with no Irish ancestry decided to
join in. In Boston, it's further helped along by coinciding with
Evacuation Day, the anniversary of the morning during the Revolution
when the British woke up and found the long-range guns from Fort
Ticonderoga pointing down at their ships in the harbor from Dorchester
Heights, and promptly evacuated from Boston. It's Evacuation Day
that's the legal holiday in Boston. For some reason, the Irish
immigrants in the 1840s and 1850s found this to be an excellent
holiday.
> [Note for the observant - I'm being made to work today.
> Note for the even more observant - I can't seem to do much, hence
> reading here during compiles...]
Note for the non-Americans: only tiny, tiny numbers of Americans, even
in the most heavily Irish-American cities, have the day off. March 17
is a legal holiday in Suffolk County in Massachusetts--and this
affects city and county employees, and Suffolk County is a small
county.
[In fact, I'm not sure Suffolk County still exists. Massachusetts is
in the process of abolishing counties on the grounds that they're a
fairly useless additional layer of government, and some of them are
already gone.]
<snip>
Lis Carey
David Kennedy
>
> David Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > Samael wrote:
> > > Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > > >You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
> > > >part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
> > >
> > > You have no idea how much that pisses Scottish people off.
> >
> > You have no idea how much that pisses [all non-Americans] off.
>
> Because you utterly misunderstand what we're talking about when we say
> it. We're discussing ethnicity, not nationality. We're talking about
> ourselves and our ancestry, and the related questions of when and why
> those ancestors came here. Which last usually, of course, boils down
> to, "because it was so bad where they were."
...and you utterly misunderstand just how irritating it gets to
hear almost EVERY american you ever talk to claim to be Irish,
or part Irish. Why do so few Americans just settle for being
American? I mean, it's not as if you don't have an intensely
patriotic culture! :-)
I can't remember the last time I described my ethnicity in terms
of celt invasion, viking raids or scottish planting.
ObSF: Ian McDonald
> > [Note for the observant - I'm being made to work today.
>
> Note for the non-Americans: only tiny, tiny numbers of Americans, even
> in the most heavily Irish-American cities, have the day off.
Yes, but I was in Belfast, and while it's not an official holiday
almost everyone I knew wasn't in work... :-(
--
David Kennedy, | kenn...@nortelnetworks.com
Northern Ireland Telecommunications | ESN: 6 751 2678
Engineering Centre (NITEC), | Phone: 01232 362678
Nortel Networks | Fax: 01232 363170
James Nicoll
>
>James Nicoll wrote in message <92168757...@watserv4.uwaterloo.ca>...
>>In article <36EF9AC4...@nortelnetworks.com>,
>>>Samael wrote:
>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> >You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
>>>> >part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea how much that pisses Scottish people off.
>>>
>>>You have no idea how much that pisses [all non-Americans] off.
>>>
>>>celebrating in Boston than in the whole of this island (or somesuch
>>>scary statistic).
>>>
>>> reading here during compiles...]
>>>
>>>> since Braveheart....)
>>>
>>>*shudder* I can picture it, all ruddy necks and big, brightly
>>>coloured coats.
>>
>> Hmmmph. Don't the New World Scots and Irish outnumber the
>>stay-at-homes?
>
>
>No, because there are no new world Scots and Irish.
>
>There are merely people of Scots and Irish descent.
>The culture is about as close as Disneyland is to New York.
That will come as some surprise to my relatives in Nova
Scotia. I'd bet more of them use Gaelic day to day than do in
Scotland. If you think their culture is fake because it happens
to be a bit different from yours, well, that says more about
current Scottish insularity than anything else.
If the cultures have diverged a bit, no problem. the
advantage of capital is on the New World side. We can afford
to purchase Scotland, resettle from the New World and harmonize
the various cultures.
gur...@saruman.wizard.net
> Elisabeth Carey wrote:
> >
> > David Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > Samael wrote:
> > > > Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > > > >You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
> > > > >part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea how much that pisses Scottish people off.
> > >
> > > You have no idea how much that pisses [all non-Americans] off.
> >
> > Because you utterly misunderstand what we're talking about when we say
> > it. We're discussing ethnicity, not nationality. We're talking about
> > ourselves and our ancestry, and the related questions of when and why
> > those ancestors came here. Which last usually, of course, boils down
> > to, "because it was so bad where they were."
>
> ...and you utterly misunderstand just how irritating it gets to
> hear almost EVERY american you ever talk to claim to be Irish,
> or part Irish. Why do so few Americans just settle for being
> American? I mean, it's not as if you don't have an intensely
> patriotic culture! :-)
Um, we don't. Not particularly, anymore. And I live in (well, on the
outskirts of) Washington, D.C.
Our American heritage only goes back so far, and we *are* quite the
melting pot. There are lots and lots of different ethnicities here, so
partially defining onesself based on which country one's ancestors came
from makes sense.
> I can't remember the last time I described my ethnicity in terms
> of celt invasion, viking raids or scottish planting.
Perhaps because our forefathers emigrated (at most) a couple hundred years
ago, and yours a couple thousand? OK, maybe a thousand, but Ireland was
inhabited a lot earlier than the Irish came to America.
> ObSF: Ian McDonald
>
> > > [Note for the observant - I'm being made to work today.
> >
> > Note for the non-Americans: only tiny, tiny numbers of Americans, even
> > in the most heavily Irish-American cities, have the day off.
[snip]
In fact, I don't know of anyone who gets St. Patrick's Day off (which is
not to say that nobody does, of course).
Brent P. Newhall
Editor of Papyrus
http://www.papyrus-fiction.com/
Timothy C. Eisele
: ...and you utterly misunderstand just how irritating it gets to
: hear almost EVERY american you ever talk to claim to be Irish,
: or part Irish. Why do so few Americans just settle for being
: American? I mean, it's not as if you don't have an intensely
: patriotic culture! :-)
: I can't remember the last time I described my ethnicity in terms
: of celt invasion, viking raids or scottish planting.
Well, you can be irritated by it if you like, but please keep in
mind this one thing: at least in the parts of the U. S. I've lived
in, the majority of people have one or more parents or grandparents who
came to America, and who told their children and grandchildren about it
(I had one grandparent who immigrated from Germany, for example).
So, what you have is people who feel affectionately towards their
immigrant Grandma or Grandpa. They get to feeing that calling
themselves just "American" would be a slap in the face to the beloved
relative, like saying that they are ashamed of their ethnicity. So, they
call themselves whatever the grandparents call themselves, because it
feels like the reasonable thing to do.
It's a natural thing. For that matter, let's say, oh,
how about a French couple, immigrated to Ireland and had a child.
Do you think the neighbors, when asked, would think of that child
as being Irish? Or for that matter, that the child would naturally
think of himself as Irish unless the parents really tried very hard
to convince him that he was?
Tim Eisele
tcei...@mtu.edu
ps: If it seems to you that "everybody" claims to be Irish, you need to
get out more. At least in Michigan, most people seem to think of
themselves as German, Polish, Italian, Finnish, and Scandinavian, for
what it's worth.
Charlie Stross
as <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> declared:
> If the cultures have diverged a bit, no problem. the
>advantage of capital is on the New World side. We can afford
>to purchase Scotland, resettle from the New World and harmonize
>the various cultures.
You may think that -- I suspect you'd get a bit of a surprise if you
bothered visiting over here.
(Despite the London government having munged the figures over the mast
couple of decades, Scotland as an independent country would meet the
Maastricht convergence criteria for the euro more neatly than most other
parts of Europe, meaning it's stable and productive enough to survive in
an economic zone where performance is benchmarked by Germany.)
-- Charlie
Charlie Stross
>>(Despite the London government having munged the figures over the mast
>>couple of decades, Scotland as an independent country would meet the
>>Maastricht convergence criteria for the euro more neatly than most other
>>parts of Europe, meaning it's stable and productive enough to survive in
>>an economic zone where performance is benchmarked by Germany.)
>
>Yes, and what's the total book value of Scotland? In euros or
>dollars, whichever. It's a prosperous country, but it's not a very
>_big_ country.
Surprisingly similar to Norway. Both have populations of about five
million, both have a larger land area than you might think -- Scotland
has about the same area as England and Wales put together, but a tenth
the population.
Yes, compared to the USA it's tiny on both counts. But it would cost
a _lot_ to buy; we're talking a GDP of under a hundred billion pounds
a year but probably over fifty. If you viewed it as a corporation,
buying that kind of turnover would set you back as much as taking
over GE or Microsoft plus Boeing. If you viewed it as raw land for a
land purchase, well, you're still talking billions. (Land prices in
the UK are orders of magnitude higher than they are in the USA, even
in the underpopulated bits. Think Japanese population density levels
if you want to understand why.)
And then there's the oil. Probably less than a hundred billion dollars
worth of it left in the ground by now, but that's still got to add
something to the bill.
>I suspect that the combined wealth of all Scottish-Americans would
>indeed be enough to purchase Scotland, were it for sale.
And if you could get everybody to agree to spend their wealth on the
purchase. _How_ many Scottish-Americans are there? If you can find
thirty million of 'em each willing and able to stump up ten thousand
dollars, you're just about within spitting distance of the target.
-- Charlie
Samael
James Nicoll wrote in message <92176518...@watserv4.uwaterloo.ca>...
>In article <36f0e...@192.168.0.20>, Samael <Sam...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>James Nicoll wrote in message <92168757...@watserv4.uwaterloo.ca>...
>>>In article <36EF9AC4...@nortelnetworks.com>,
>>>>Samael wrote:
>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>> >You'll find that in US usage a lot, omitting the "hyphen-American"
>>>>> >part and just mentioning the ancestral line. Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no idea how much that pisses Scottish people off.
>>>>
>>>>You have no idea how much that pisses [all non-Americans] off.
>>>>
>>>>celebrating in Boston than in the whole of this island (or somesuch
>>>>scary statistic).
>>>>
>>>> reading here during compiles...]
>>>>
>>>>> (Sorry, I live in the town with the Wallace Monument is, and well,
ever
>>>>> since Braveheart....)
>>>>
>>>>*shudder* I can picture it, all ruddy necks and big, brightly
>>>>coloured coats.
>>>
>>> Hmmmph. Don't the New World Scots and Irish outnumber the
>>>stay-at-homes?
>>
>>
>>No, because there are no new world Scots and Irish.
>>
>>There are merely people of Scots and Irish descent.
>>The culture is about as close as Disneyland is to New York.
>
> That will come as some surprise to my relatives in Nova
>Scotia. I'd bet more of them use Gaelic day to day than do in
>Scotland. If you think their culture is fake because it happens
>to be a bit different from yours, well, that says more about
>current Scottish insularity than anything else.
Not _fake_, _different_.
Tourists arrive over saying 'I'm Scottish' and looking for a romaticised
version of what they imagine Scotland to be.
Samael
Dorothy J Heydt
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>[In fact, I'm not sure Suffolk County still exists. Massachusetts is
>in the process of abolishing counties on the grounds that they're a
>fairly useless additional layer of government, and some of them are
>already gone.]
This makes sense. No offense intended, but Massachusetts is
smaller than any county in California. It was built when feet
(men's and horses') were the fastest mode of travel and/or
communication. In an age with faster modes of both than the
telegraph and railroad that made the West possible, the
intermediate level of bureaucracy isn't necessary. They do still
seem to fill useful functions in California, this will no doubt
pass in time.
Michael S. Schiffer
>David Kennedy <kenn...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>: ...and you utterly misunderstand just how irritating it gets to
>: hear almost EVERY american you ever talk to claim to be Irish,
>: or part Irish. Why do so few Americans just settle for being
>: American? I mean, it's not as if you don't have an intensely
>: patriotic culture! :-)
Of course, when we do that, we're often told that we're sadly monolingual
and parochial. :-)
Besides, why would it make sense for anyone to give up the foods, holidays,
and family customs they brought with them just because they've moved? Of
course those customs will mutate (after all, the home country isn't exactly
in a deep freeze either). But why would Americans of Irish descent give up
a holiday their parents held dear? And why wouldn't their neighbors, when
they noticed that the Flanagans were having a really _good_ party,
appreciate being invited to join in?
>: I can't remember the last time I described my ethnicity in terms
>: of celt invasion, viking raids or scottish planting.
And yet, St. Patrick himself came from Britain, IIRC. Shouldn't you leave
celebrating him to his own people, then? Surely by now you could honor an
Irish saint or hero instead.
>Well, you can be irritated by it if you like, but please keep in
>mind this one thing: at least in the parts of the U. S. I've lived
>in, the majority of people have one or more parents or grandparents who
>came to America, and who told their children and grandchildren about it
>(I had one grandparent who immigrated from Germany, for example).
>So, what you have is people who feel affectionately towards their
>immigrant Grandma or Grandpa. They get to feeing that calling
>themselves just "American" would be a slap in the face to the beloved
>relative, like saying that they are ashamed of their ethnicity. So, they
>call themselves whatever the grandparents call themselves, because it
>feels like the reasonable thing to do.
Add to that the fact that immigrant groups often formed social, economic,
and political networks that continue to have influence for generations.
The fact that Chicago's mayor is named Daley and the fact that it does a
big St. Patrick's Day do (complete with dyeing the Chicago River green) are
not entirely unrelated. (In the last election, there was a candidate for a
judgeship named Bonnie Fitzgerald McGrath. Her full first name was Bonita,
she'd gotten the McGrath from her ex-husband, and the Fitzgerald was just
made up, but her political consultant thought that an Irish name would
garner her a few extra votes. It didn't, in the end, work, but it was far
from implausible.
It's also worth noting that the current climate is to some extent a
reaction against the more homogenizing trend of early-to-mid century, in
which immigrants were encouraged to drop their original languages (and, as
far as possible, their accents), eliminate any distinctive modes of dress,
and try to make their kids as "American" as possible. It often turned out
that the grandkids (themselves safely free of distinctive accents or
unfamiliarity with local customs) became interested in the language,
customs, and stories of where their grandparents came from. Especially
since those places generally have had more "interesting times" (as the
Chinese curse would have it, but still more interesting to recall from a
safe distance) than their hometown.
>...
>ps: If it seems to you that "everybody" claims to be Irish, you need to
>get out more. At least in Michigan, most people seem to think of
>themselves as German, Polish, Italian, Finnish, and Scandinavian, for
>what it's worth.
Major self-defined ethnicities I've noticed in Chicago include (in no
particular order) Irish, Polish, Croatian, African-American, Korean,
Chinese, Latino, German, and Jewish (which straddles the
religion/ethnicity boundary). Some members of any above group will wear
green on St. Patrick's Day. And any politician, of any ethnicity, ignores
the day at his or her peril. (Of course, the same can be said, albeit to a
significantly lesser extent, for ignoring the Chinese New Year celebration
in Chinatown, the Bud Billiken parade, or any number of other events
important to Chicago's constituent communities.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "I decline utterly to be impartial
ms...@mediaone.net as between the fire brigade and
msch...@condor.depaul.edu the fire."
-- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
Ahasuerus
> ...and you utterly misunderstand just how irritating it gets to
> hear almost EVERY american you ever talk to claim to be Irish,
> or part Irish. Why do so few Americans just settle for being
> American? I mean, it's not as if you don't have an intensely
> patriotic culture! :-)
Yes, it's sad, isn't it? And all these Martian tourists always claiming to
be Earthling or part Eathling. Can't they just settle for being Martian?
--
Ahasuerus
Christopher K Davis
> Add to that the fact that immigrant groups often formed social, economic,
> and political networks that continue to have influence for generations.
> [...] (In the last election, there was a candidate for a judgeship named
> Bonnie Fitzgerald McGrath. Her full first name was Bonita, she'd gotten
> the McGrath from her ex-husband, and the Fitzgerald was just made up, but
> her political consultant thought that an Irish name would garner her a few
> extra votes. It didn't, in the end, work, but it was far from implausible.
The same thing happens in Massachusetts. In 1998, for the 8th District
primary (10 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, which in
this district is tantamount to the general election) the two front-runners
were Capuano and Flynn, and another candidate decided that listing her
name as "Marjorie O'Neill Clapprood" on the signs might pick up an extra
vote or three.
In another race (Governor's Council, which is the functional equivalent
of the vermiform appendix) one candidate was busily touting the fact that
she'd been born in Galway in ads in one of the local Irish newspaperoid
publications.
I won't even begin to estimate the number of contractors, towing
companies, or heating oil companies that have shamrocks liberally
painted on their trucks.
ObSF: _Alternate Kennedys_, of course!
--
Christopher Davis * <ckd...@ckdhr.com> * <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/>
Put location information in your DNS! <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/dns-loc/>
James Nicoll
Charlie Stross <charlie @ nospam . antipope . org> wrote:
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>
>> If the cultures have diverged a bit, no problem. the
>>advantage of capital is on the New World side. We can afford
>>to purchase Scotland, resettle from the New World and harmonize
>>the various cultures.
>
>You may think that -- I suspect you'd get a bit of a surprise if you
>bothered visiting over here.
I used to live in the UK, actually. 1961-1965 and my father
made point of taking us north to our great grandfather's home or
the field it used to be in, anyway, before ggf traded rocks for
active volcanoes.
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
If you didn't mean to imply our version was fake, you probably
shouldn't have used the term 'Disneyland' up above. HTH.
Alison Scott
>So I checked. Found a big British builder advertising on the Web.
>Looked at listings for some nice single-family homes in Newcastle and
>in Livingston and Kirkcaldy, in eastern Scotland. Converted from
>pounds to dollars, the stated prices are closely comparable with the
>outer suburbs of Boston, Washington, or New York.
>
Nice single family homes, but most new build is on greenfield sites
with no local services apart from the odd shop and pub put into the
estate (if you're lucky) and miles away from convenient transport
links.
When we were in New York, indulging our pet holiday hobby of browsing
estate agents windows indicated that we could buy somewhere perfectly
decent (though not a house) in Park Slope in Brooklyn given our London
purchasing power; comparably civilised areas of London are quite
beyond us for anything larger than a rathole.
But no, not orders of magnitude. If it was, London wouldn't be a
remotely acceptable place to live.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Now with added cobwebs: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Del Cotter
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>Surprisingly similar to Norway. Both have populations of about five
>>million, both have a larger land area than you might think -- Scotland
>>has about the same area as England and Wales put together, but a tenth
>>the population.
>
>Okay, I misjudged slightly; I knew it was bigger than England, didn't
>think it was that much bigger. I thought it was pretty close to
>England in size, sans Wales.
What *are* you both burbling on about?
England: 130,500 km2
Scotland: 78,800 km2
Wales: 20,800 km2
Is there some definition of "Scotland" or "area" of which I'm not aware?
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
The Alien Design Bibliography
http://www.branta.demon.co.uk/alien-design/
Del Cotter
>That will come as some surprise to my relatives in Nova
>Scotia. I'd bet more of them use Gaelic day to day than do in
>Scotland.
So they're Gaelic-speaking Nova Scotians. That's great. But they're
not Scottish.
>If you think their culture is fake because it happens
>to be a bit different from yours, well, that says more about
>current Scottish insularity than anything else.
It's real. It's just not Scottish.
Look.
Quick quiz: am I English, or Irish? Don't worry about whether you know
enough about me to tell; it so happens you do.
Now, should the answer change if I then tell you the details of my
immediate family? If so, then why did an American (whose nearest Irish
relative was his dead great-grandfather who left Ireland as a boy) think
he could post on Usenet about what "you" (me) did to "us" (him)?
Del Cotter
>I suspect that the combined wealth of all Scottish-Americans would
>indeed be enough to purchase Scotland, were it for sale. I'd chip in
>my share.
What a charming attitude. I believe this is what they call in business
a hostile takeover.
But it's not for sale, and you can't vote to put it *up* for sale,
because you're not shareholders. You're not Scottish.
Mike Schilling
>
> In article <36F0F1B4...@mediaone.net>,
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> >[In fact, I'm not sure Suffolk County still exists. Massachusetts is
> >in the process of abolishing counties on the grounds that they're a
> >fairly useless additional layer of government, and some of them are
> >already gone.]
>
> This makes sense. No offense intended, but Massachusetts is
> smaller than any county in California.
Sorry? Boston alone has more people than, say, Alpine County, and
Massachusetts certainly isn't smaller in area than the 50 square miles
of San Francisco.
Christopher K Davis
> Quick quiz: am I English, or Irish? Don't worry about whether you
> know enough about me to tell; it so happens you do.
Heh. That particular question would be a really silly one to ask my
wife; she's both and has passports to prove it. (Born in England,
English father, Irish mother.)
> Now, should the answer change if I then tell you the details of my
> immediate family? If so, then why did an American (whose nearest Irish
> relative was his dead great-grandfather who left Ireland as a boy) think
> he could post on Usenet about what "you" (me) did to "us" (him)?
Well, my nearest Irish relative is me, except that doesn't really count
as that citizenship was acquired by marriage rather than by descent.
(Though I might well have Irish ancestry to go with my Welsh, German,
Dutch, and whatever else is in there....)
We joke that my wife should alternately oppress herself and complain
about being oppressed by herself, to fully express her heritage. :-)